Quote Originally Posted by jmm99 View Post
Continuing with what we (US) have become accustomed to in the Middle East and South Asia (oil, minerals, Israel, etc.) is a major reason why the US is unlikely to withdraw military forces and military aid from the Middle East and South Asia. And, of course, to those who believe that the US must be the sole superpower (e.g., control of Hormuz as Ray points out), that is another major (in fact, probably sufficient) reason not to withdraw.

I expect what role the US will play in the future will be determined by economics, not by the logic or illogic of futuristic propositions.

Regards

Mike
This link would give an idea as to whether soft power itself can succeed.

Contrary to what many politicians and talking heads tell Americans, a false choice exists between what are often referred to as hard and soft power. A country's military resources (its hard power) and the diplomatic tools it uses to persuade others without resorting to coercion (its soft power) operate most efficiently in tandem....
Link
Soft power alone cannot determine a country's influence on other countries.

The US could embark on the Iraq War on the slogan of 'Freedom and Democracy' and WMD, even though it was patently unjustifiable was because the US was militarily and economical strong and thus could mute any serious international uproar. If it had been any other country, there would have been international condemnation and if it were a weak country, then there would be sanctions imposed.

Therefore, a nation has to be militarily and economically relevant to dictate its terms.

As I see it, economics cannot be seen to be independent of being a relevant militarily. China may try what it wants, but it is still not militarily relevant and hence cannot make its writ run, even though it is an economic powerhourse.

The fact that the US is a military power, it is dictating the convertible currency for world trade. notwithstanding the pressure to convert to other currencies.

Therefore, maybe, the US will have to maintain her supremacy as the world sole global superpower through military and economic might

Quote Originally Posted by omarali50 View Post
I suspect that a lot of "strategic thinking" basically exists because we employ strategic thinkers. Otherwise, it doesnt really matter who controls the bloody straits of hormuz. Not in the present world system....we COULD move to a situation where it matters, but then so many other things will change and collapse that talking about it as if the rest of the world remains the same and X blocks Y is just meaningless.
MOre to the point, the best thing the US could do would be to establish a successful pax Americana (which includes buy-in from all powers, including China) without going bankrupt, but that aint gonna happen.
THe next best thing is to get out and make sure you can pull China into playing superpower in afghanistan. Then sit back with coke and popcorn and watch the #### go down in 3D....
I wonder if employing strategists leads to 'strategic thinking'. The whole ball game is as ancient as possibly mankind. In China, there is a strategy game called 'Go'. It is ancient and very interesting.

The chokepoints of the world are important to 'exert' influence, the same way as sanctions are used to exert influence. While sanctions can be circumvented, choking of a 'chokepoint' carrying essential economic ware for sustenance cannot be. For instance, hypothetically, the Straits of Hormuz is made unpliable, imagine the effect on China's economy. China is aware of the dangers of the chokepoints and hence are feverishly devising alternate routes to ensure the needed oil supply; they being the direct pipeline from the Caspian, the pipeline through Gwadar and the one through Myanmar.

As far as China entering Afghanistan in any role, she would baulk at such a move for the simple reason that she will have to take sides. She cannot afford to upset any side of Muslim sentiment because of her internal problem in East Turkmenistan where the party whose sentiment has been rubbed, could interfere and cause immense problems for China and may even upset China's attempt to Sinicise the Uyghurs.